Pages

Thursday, February 02, 2012

Can a leopard change his spots?

It seems that a certain non-philosopher has a difficult time fairly exegeting my plain words.

It seems that a certain apologist for Hare Krishna has a difficult time explaining himself.

That he also lacks charity in his expression of disagreement is also much in evidence. I have indeed returned to Christian orthodoxy -- the Nicene Creed was the standard implied by James Anderson in the discussion in question, and that will suffice for my purposes.

Yes, well, you know the old saying about the leopard changing his spots (Jer 13:23). The fact that Tony strenuously defends panentheism as “orthodox,” in the added context of Sudduth’s conversion of Hare Krishna, no less, suggests the spot remover was temporary.

In my initial post I had said they warrant a prima facie presumption -- a defeasible, "at first glance" presumption -- in favor of panentheism…I don't assume the locative sense for the Greek en, but the neither should the instrumental sense be assumed.

Tony fails to grasp what conditions must be met for Acts 17:28 to even constitute a prima facie prooftext for panentheism. Since he can’t see that for himself, let’s walk him through the process:

i) He’d have to show that the locative sense is the prima facie preferred meaning of the Greek preposition. Otherwise, Flood’s appeal is equivocal.

ii) Assuming he did (i), he’d have to show that the locative sense was prima facie meant literally rather than figuratively. Otherwise, Flood’s appeal is equivocal.

iii) Assuming he did (ii), he’d have to show that the quote prima facie teaches panentheism rather than pantheism. Otherwise, Flood’s appeal is equivocal.

iv) Assuming he did (iii), he’d have to show that even if the quote originally taught panentheism in Classical usage, that this was still the prima facie understanding in Hellenistic times. Otherwise, Flood’s appeal is equivocal.

v) Assuming he did (iv), he’d have to show that even if the quote was understood panentheistically by Paul’s pagan audience, that this is also how Paul prima facie intended to exploit the quote. Otherwise, Flood’s appeal is equivocal.

vi) Assuming he did (v) he’d have to show that even if Paul intended the passage panentheistically, that Paul’s model of panentheism is prima facie isometric with Flood’s panexperientialist model of panentheism. Otherwise, Flood’s appeal is equivocal.

vii) Assuming he did (vi), Flood would also have to show that his panexperiential model of pantheism is prima facie isometric with the panentheism of the Hare Krishna cult.

So Flood must establish each of seven individual propositions to even justify his prima facie appeal.

"Paul clearly has a different worldview than the pagan source he quotes," but even a broken clock tells time correctly twice a day, and this was one of those times.

That’s a non sequitur. The fact that Paul is exploiting a pagan source doesn’t necessarily or even probably mean that they coincidentally agree at this particular juncture.

Rather, Paul could just as well, or better, be mounting an ad hominem argument, by addressing his pagan audience on its own grounds. For Paul’s purposes, what matters is not what he thought the original writer meant, but what his audience would take the quote to mean, especially as a Paul recontextualizes the source material. Paul’s intent is determinative.

A pagan writer had said that we are the offspring of the Gods, but instead of denying that genealogy, Paul drew a lesson from it: "we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone" (Acts 17:29a). I suggested a panexperientialist model of how one thing can be “in” another, one person can be “in” another, and how creation can be “in” the creator. Again, why beg the question against that model? The most important question is: which model makes the most sense of all the scriptures?

i) To begin with, notice the bait-n-switch. Flood initially told Anderson that “it would be good to have Anderson’s interpretation of Acts 17:28...which at least prima facie supports a panentheistic understanding of the creator-creature relationship.”

Now Flood suddenly swapped out Acts 17:28 and swapped in Acts 17:29a.

ii) Even so, Flood must now explain how his new prooftext furnishes prima facie support for panentheism.

iii) He also needs to show that Paul’s alleged model of panentheism maps onto Flood’s preferred model.

iv) Finally, let’s briefly consider Flood’s own model. He said:

On a panexperientialist metaphysics, God experiences – not merely contemplates at a safe distance – His creatures, which are, at the basic level, also subjects of (at least rudimentary) experience, and they all experience God. Experience provides a non-spatial model for understanding how one entity can be “in” another – even how one Divine Person can be in Another – which is most assuredly not like Bob’s being in the kitchen. Neither is it a mereological (whole and its parts) affair (or set and subsets), on which your putative refutation trades. According to this panexperientialist model, God has judged and redeemed the fallen creation that He experiences, but its fallenness does not demote Him metaphysically in any way. It does not “pollute” Him, to use your descriptor, or derange Him. He knows His creation from the inside as well as from the outside. We enjoy the good and suffer evil, and so does God, He does so but eminently.

i) To suggest that in Classical Christian theism (e.g. divine impassibility), God contemplates his creation at a “safe distance” is a rather tendentious way of framing the issue.

For instance, a virologist might study a deadly virus at a safe distance to avoid infecting himself. But he’s not doing that merely to protect himself. Rather, if he were to risk infection, and thereby die, he’d be in no position to discover a cure. Putting himself at risk puts his patients at risk. He can’t treat his patients effectively if he himself is a dying patient.

Likewise, if a psychiatrist is treating a mental patient, it’s preferable than the psychiatrist is not himself mentally ill. The sane should treat the insane; not the insane treating each other. A psychiatrist shouldn’t experience the insanity of the patient. If he shared the insider perspective of his mental patient, he’d be incompetent to treat the patient.

“Distance” can be a good thing.

ii) Likewise, if God feels whatever Ted Bundy feels, then that does indeed, pollute or derange God. Bundy didn’t enjoy the good and suffer the evil. Rather, Bundy enjoyed the evil. If God truly identifies with the viewpoint of his creatures, from the inside out, then he takes pleasure in what pleases Ted Bundy.

While we’re on the subject of Flood’s spooftexting, he also cited 2 Pet 1:4 as prima facie evidence for his position. But as a standard commentary explains:

Peter's affirmation enters into the ancient discussion about the nature of the gods, humans, and the animal world. The question raised was not about humans becoming divine but rather which characteristics and attributes these different classes of beings shared or did not share (see 1:3 and comments).

Peter’s thought has to do with moral transformation and not divinization or becoming divine men...about the acquisition of moral character...Peter underscores the moral aspect of participation in the divine nature...

G. Green, Jude & 2 Peter, 186-87.

As such, that text supplies no prima facie support for Flood’s appeal.

Finally, the irenic tone James Anderson took in his last reply to me should be noted. It would be nice if it were also emulated.

It would also be nice if Flood led by example. When is Flood going to emulate the virtues which he urges on others?

14 comments:

Peter does not appear to be speaking exclusively of moral transformation. For the saved secure immortality ("escape corruption"), which is more existential than moral. That is, it concerns being rather than action (although perhaps the two are not so easily separated).

In classical Christian thought (Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental), a man's participation in God's inner life -- through the sacraments and the Deity's in-dwelling power -- render him "like God."

"It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me" (Galatians 2:20). We're talking not simply moral transformation, but an ontological shift at the core of one's being, from death to life."We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing" (Romans 6:6). "But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit" (I Corinthians 6:17).

Thus Athanasius and Augustine and Aquinas and Irenaeus could all say something to the tune of: "God became man so that man might become God." What think you of this "great exchange," as it is sometimes called?

Luther and Calvin seemed also to have understood that our participation in the Divine nature means more than moral change. Rather, it implies a shift from one mode of existence to another.

"Just as the Word of God became flesh, so it is certainly also necessary that the flesh become word. For the Word becomes flesh precisely so that the flesh may become word. In other words: God becomes man so that man may become God. Thus power becomes powerless so that weakness may become powerful. The Logos puts on our form and manner" (Martin Luther, Christmas Day, 1514).

"This is the wonderful exchange which, out of His measureless benevolence, He has made with us; that, becoming Son of Man with us, He has made us sons of God with Him; that, by His descent on earth, He has prepared an ascent to heaven for us; that, by taking on our mortality, He has conferred His immortality upon us" (John Calvin, Institutes, Book IV, Chapter 17, Section 2).

And, most importantly, the Apostle: "Thus it is written, 'The first man Adam became a living being'; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, la man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven" (I Corinthians 15:45-49).

Both Peter and Paul knew the same Lord, worshiped by the same Father, and received inspiration from the same Spirit. Thus Peter can inform Paul and vice versa.

Anyway, the motif of ontological transformation runs through Scripture and is especially apparent in the apostolic letters. Peter, Paul, and John particularly make clear that our union with Christ is not simply moral.

Note that I said "not simply," meaning that moral transformation is indeed an element, but it does not exhaust the enormous and mysterious reality of the relationship between Christ and Christian. This is the testimony of the Church from the start, and has been recognized by the luminaries of your own tradition.

"You can't automatically quote one writer to construe the linguistic usage of another writer. You need to interpret each author's usage on his own terms."

I'm not doing that. What I'm doing is recognizing one Scriptural theme and then identifying its exploration by two writers -- writers who are obviously unique, yet led by the same Spirit.

You may not believe such a theme exists, but I will rest upon the witness twenty centuries of Christians: Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Oriental.

You have yet to answer my questions, so I'm not sure where you're coming from. Do you believe that God in-dwells His followers? Is there a transformation involved in becoming a child of God apart from a change in manners? Do you accept the idea of an exchange: God becoming man so that man might become God (or Godlike, more properly)?

Even taking II Peter 1:4 in isolation, a case can easily be made for an ontological reading. What is the corruption of the world but sin, and what is sin but separation from God? For death and corruption entered through sin, which occurred when Adam and Eve severed their communion with God. Peter is discussing the restoration of communion with the Trinity, which begins now and is consummated later.

I want to be carefully to avoid severing morality and ontology, what we do and who we are. They are intertwined.

"I'm not doing that. What I'm doing is recognizing one Scriptural theme and then identifying its exploration by two writers -- writers who are obviously unique, yet led by the same Spirit."

Which begs the same question inasmuch as you don't know ahead of time that Peter and Paul are addressing the same theme. Unless you already know what both of them mean individually, you can't compare them.

"You have yet to answer my questions, so I'm not sure where you're coming from."

You're asking the wrong questions of the text.

"Even taking II Peter 1:4 in isolation, a case can easily be made for an ontological reading."

No, you're just trying to wing it without doing the necessary spadework.

You seem to be a nice guy, but you lack discipline. You are either unable, unwilling, or both, to frame issues correctly. As such, you and I will never have a constructive exchange.

Look, despite your negative verdict, this verse is consistently raised in discussions of divinization. So its meaning is obviously not so clear as you imagine.

May I point something out? At times, I notice that you Triablogeurs are awfully uncomfortable with ambiguity. Thus any interpretation at variance with your own is dismissed as ignorant. Isn't there room for honest disagreement? Isn't there room for uncertainty or mystery?

Anyway, I was -- and still am -- speaking more broadly than the cited texts.

I'm happy to engage with certain Scriptures (although I have no real training), but I also wonder in general how you view the issues of in-dwelling, moral vs. ontological transformation, and exchange.

I found this curious: your source denies Peter is interested in theosis, then proceeds to write, "Peter underscores the moral aspect of participation in the divine nature."

So is there or is there not divinization ("participation in the divine nature")?

"Look, despite your negative verdict, this verse is consistently raised in discussions of divinization. So its meaning is obviously not so clear as you imagine. "

To the contrary, it means the Eastern Orthodox are trying to retroactively prooftext a position (theosis) they arrived at quite apart from Scripture or serious exegesis.

"May I point something out? At times, I notice that you Triablogeurs are awfully uncomfortable with ambiguity. Thus any interpretation at variance with your own is dismissed as ignorant. Isn't there room for honest disagreement?"

You haven't done your homework.

"Isn't there room for uncertainty or mystery?"

You're not vying for ambiguity. You're vying for your own position.

"Anyway, I was -- and still am -- speaking more broadly than the cited texts."

Which is irrelevant if the usage in 2 Pet 1:4 is more specialized.

"So is there or is there not divinization ('participation in the divine nature')?"

Moral, not ontological.

And there's nothing usual about his interpretation. Peter Davids, in his commentary, takes the same position.

I'm really taken aback by your nonchalant dismissal of the fathers as poor students of the Bible. Basil spent the better part of "On the Holy Spirit" analyzing the use of prepositions! I recall being shocked at the sophistication of his criticism.

"1. The notion of theosis is common to Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Christians. A good many Protestants, too. Prior to the Reformation, it was universally understood... Retroactive proof-texting? Hardly. Theosis was discussed as early as the early second century."

As usual, you're equivocating. For instance, it involves a Palamite dichotomy between God's essence and God's uncreated energies. That's a very distinctive metaphysical scheme. And it evolved over time.

I don't have endless amounts of time to correct your chronically sloppy reasoning.

"Irenaeus was not a serious exegete? Origen? Clement of Alexandria? Athanasius? The Cappadocians? Are you serious?"

See above.

"You maintain that there is no ontological transformation whatsoever involved in salvation?"

You have the attention span of a 2-year-old. The question at issue is what 2 Pet 1:4 means. Learn to focus.

"I'm really taken aback by your nonchalant dismissal of the fathers as poor students of the Bible."

You mention Origen (above), but, of course, the Eastern Orthodox classify him as a heretic rather than a church father.